Hinduism (which isn't it's correct title but I will use this as it is easier) has many different incarnations. Some people worship 'Demigods' (expansions of the Supreme Being) and some worship Krishna as being the Supreme Being, it gets quite complicated!

Welcome.

I have to admit that I find Hinduism difficult to understand, and the apparent contradiction between one or many gods is a bit confusing. However, I'm sure others might say the same about the Christian Trinity.

In contrast to some of the people you encounter, I think that there is One God, and I certainly have my beliefs about the nature of God, but I see the variation in Religions, as attempts to seek knowledge of the same God, in many cases--others are non-theistic by their nature).

I have to admit that I find Hinduism difficult to understand, and the apparent contradiction between one or many gods is a bit confusing. However, I'm sure others might say the same about the Christian Trinity.

In contrast to some of the people you encounter, I think that there is One God, and I certainly have my beliefs about the nature of God, but I see the variation in Religions, as attempts to seek knowledge of the same God, in many cases--others are non-theistic by their nature).

Personally, I respect anyone's sincere belief.

KAM

I think some reading here need to know that not all christians believe God is a trinity.

So, consider this. Religion was invented by man. Invented in an age where everyday simple things couldn't be explained (the weather, the sun, death, birth, the moon etc.) in an age where science didn't exist. Therefore, the only "logical" explanation at the time must be some sort of "higher being". This fundamental idea evolved as societies evolved and expanded. It became an easy, social way to "police" society saying that this "higher being" will "punish" you if you don't behave (conform to societies' conventions). This "idea" has been set in man's psyche since man has had an ounce of thought. Now, why is this important? Well, over man's evolution and technical advancements all those things that we couldn't explain, can now be. And as science disproves almost every single aspect of faith based ideas of "creation", "miracles" etc, the idea of one holding onto those archaic belief's makes religion seem more and more ridiculous. Now, I'm not bashing those who choose to believe what they want to believe, to each there own, it's a great story and all, but all just a bunch of malarkey.

Even looking back at the times of Jesus, Mary, Joseph (2,000 years ago), science still was all but non-existent. Think about it, it was an age and in a region where a woman having pre-marital sex of any kind was publicly stoned to death. How do we know that Mary did something that was so socially repulsive, she made up a story of an angel and virgin birth to spare her life? Biology mandates, that the ONLY way a woman can get pregnant is the introduction of sperm into the female reproductive system. Consider if a woman, in today's age, made the same claim. She would be called a liar, a cook, crazy because we all know, it' not possible. So, if we all know it's not physically possible today, why could it be physically possible 2,000 years ago? Now I know you're going to say "it's all based on interpretation". Interpretation? It's the entire backbone of christian religion.

So, consider this. Religion was invented by man. Invented in an age where everyday simple things couldn't be explained (the weather, the sun, death, birth, the moon etc.) in an age where science didn't exist. Therefore, the only "logical" explanation at the time must be some sort of "higher being". This fundamental idea evolved as societies evolved and expanded. It became an easy, social way to "police" society saying that this "higher being" will "punish" you if you don't behave (conform to societies' conventions). This "idea" has been set in man's psyche since man has had an ounce of thought. Now, why is this important? Well, over man's evolution and technical advancements all those things that we couldn't explain, can now be. And as science disproves almost every single aspect of faith based ideas of "creation", "miracles" etc, the idea of one holding onto those archaic belief's makes religion seem more and more ridiculous. Now, I'm not bashing those who choose to believe what they want to believe, to each there own, it's a great story and all, but all just a bunch of malarkey.

Even looking back at the times of Jesus, Mary, Joseph (2,000 years ago), science still was all but non-existent. Think about it, it was an age and in a region where a woman having pre-marital sex of any kind was publicly stoned to death. How do we know that Mary did something that was so socially repulsive, she made up a story of an angel and virgin birth to spare her life? Biology mandates, that the ONLY way a woman can get pregnant is the introduction of sperm into the female reproductive system. Consider if a woman, in today's age, made the same claim. She would be called a liar, a cook, crazy because we all know, it' not possible. So, if we all know it's not physically possible today, why could it be physically possible 2,000 years ago? Now I know you're going to say "it's all based on interpretation". Interpretation? It's the entire backbone of christian religion.

...just saying.

You're basing this on the christian religion, which is only one religion, who says Christianity is the 'true' religion?

"Invented in an age where everyday simple things couldn't be explained (the weather, the sun, death, birth, the moon etc.) in an age where science didn't exist."

^^ There are significant other religion(s) which do explain all the above, way before 'science', in surprisingly amazing detail, where it has only been proven by recent scientific discoveries.

Ok, let's consider the other scenario, what if someone did have a virgin birth, no male contact whatsoever, i mean seriously, and it was dubbed a miracle. Something science couldnt explain. What does that mean, everyone suddenly believes in God?

I also happen to think there's as much chance as someone getting a virgin birth as a bunch of organic compounds on a hostile planet forming intelligent life. Jus' sayin.

I for one don't believe in interpretation. That never got us anywhere, apart from where we are now.

There ARE different religions based on the bible. If you are an evangelist you read the bible literally, if you are a catholic you read it literally but also metaphorically, if you are a *** you just read the first half and ignore the rest, if you are a protestant you read the same bible but derive different values from it since the 'work ethics' and even the notion of love are somewhat different to catholics. And I'm sure there are other examples. Who can say the protestants are right? Or the jews? Or that only one group will be saved and the others will go to hell?

You are the one being irrational in your science x religion analysis. Science only accepts what can be proven by its methodology which is causality and evidence. Your statement that god created reality has no scientific evidence, just as the occurance of miracles or even the 'existence' of a 'soul' or 'spirit'. Passages on an old book that 'somehow' 'kinda' 'look-like' something scientific is in fact no science at all because is totally out of the its methodology and therefore can't be accepted by science.

About your notion of religion: 'A true religion should show the way of life, free from corruption and evil, which brings about inner peace. Which explains what to do in each situation in life. Which explains phenomena scientifically which coincides with reality. Which tells you what to do should you have a specific illness etc. If all these are done, how can you deny the creator's existence (of this true religion)'

This notion of religion is yours and yours alone. Religion doesn't necessarily bring peace, it may even cause violence, death or pain. Different religions have different values, heaven for you might be a place of peace and for another person with a different religion a place filled with virgins. The notion that a religion should explain things scientically is also just your personal idea, science actually denies any concept that is not logical and based on evidence and since god or religion has neither they simply can't be science.
If you have a specific illness you should look for a doctor, the idea that religion or god should 'cure' the believers is also your own and your own alone.

About hindus and budist when you said just because they exist it doens't mean they are true. Well, the same can't be said by a hindu or budist about your religion, are their wrong too? How can you prove that? Again, the belief in god or any religion is a matter of 'faith', is not logical and mixing the two together makes no sense.

It's not that 'faith' is used when you have no valid evidence of your religion, it's religion and god that can't be proved by any phisical evidence, even less scientific methodology, even traditions and values are subject to historical and geographical variations and therefore also can't be used to explain the existence of god.

While doing some other study, I came across a very interesting web site where someone links to MP3 talks for a lot of the topics (including many debates) we have discussed so far. Maybe some of the rest of you might find some of this interesting support material for our discussion.

You're correct in your analogy yes. However don't you think thats part of the reason why threads like this exist in the first place? Because Christianity doesnt explain/answer fundamental things it makes us look in other directions. If Christianity (say) properly explained why God does exist (not explicitly/directly, but by providing text that we cant really fault -scientifically sound) than there wouldnt really be need for threads like these, so to speak?

As far as I know, where the Bible does speak on the issue, it regards the knowledge of God as basic to human understanding. As such, it usually speaks of unbelief as a result of sin.

But using your analogy, an automotive repair book goes into further detail about how to replace a tyre (crude example) on a F1 car with a specialized non slip tyre as opposed to regular tyres, and has a sub section dedicated as to why non slip tyres are the best for racing.

Surely that book is better (and consequently not doubt/ponder why not this other tyre) rather than a automotive repair book which doesnt explain why a certain tyre is better, a mechanic may 'wander off' and try something else - religious equivalent being 'going astray?'.

Well, not necessarily. Speaking to a person who simply needs to change a tire about F1 wet and dry tires might be confusing actually. But, that analogy also assumes the Bible doesn't give enough information to accomplish its goal. Where do you think it falls short in this regard?

I think in the debate over whether or not there is a God will always end at an impase.

The unbelieving scientist will always dismiss matters of faith as unprovable, and untestable in the conventional sense. They will exclude results as coincidence and will not acknowledge any influence it cannot test or readily control.

The believer, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindi, Budhist etc. will tend to ignore the science that attempts to disprove the existance of God. If it doesn't happen to fall within the sphere of their understanding, it is written off as herecy.

The question then becomes, where do you go from here? Does science really disprove the existance of God? Or does the existance of God thwart science? Can they both co-exist and bring enlightenment to both?

I believe that science and God can and do co-exist. I believe the purpose of life is to attempt to understand God and knowing that one cannot cancel out the other, maybe it would be wise to find common ground where both agree and move from there.

By all means learn the sciences, as there are great truths to be found. Being afraid of what science says might just mean that you are not quite there when understanding who God is, and how He works.

Ephesians 1:17-18

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Proverbs 4:7

7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

By all means learn the sciences, as there are great truths to be found. Being afraid of what science says might just mean that you are not quite there when understanding who God is, and how He works.

I completely agree with your post. I wish the 2 can find a common and ground and really work better together instead of trying to disprove on another (in some cases) or have a biased premise. (I feel reasons.com is trying to merge the 2 but they are very biased towards religion IMO)

As far as the fear thing, Lets face it.. there is no way science can prove the existence of God. (unless he lives on another planet, or a scientist dies and comes back from the dead) I think the "fear" of what science says or finds will not affect many faiths as it would certain religions.

*** just removed my long winded explanatory rant***

I just think that science is at more risk of disproving a religion not God, and that is where the fear sits...
But I liked your post

Catching up. I'm sorry to hear about your family's loss of your grandfather. I think the Bob Marley music was a good thing to ease your mind. I will keep your grandfather, your family, and you in my prayers as I attend Mass tomorrow.

Muslim tradition agrees that it was established in single book form shortly after Muhammad's death [632 A.D.] by order of the caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar[8], and that their orders began a process of formalization of the scattered text that was completed under their successor Uthman with the standard edition known as the "Uthmanic recension" [which is dated as 651 A.D. here]

[Islam] was established in the early seventh century by Mohammed, a one-time merchant from Arabia who claimed to have received a revelation near the city of Mecca in modern Saudi Arabia. Islam is considered one of the three great monotheistic religions in the world (Judaism and Christianity being the other two) and its tenets are centered in Mohammedís proclaimed revelation, recorded in the Quíran. For Muslims, the Quíran is the literal word of God revealed directly to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel.

Originally Posted by gsonspre

A question to Catholics and Chrstian's if a person were to embrace another religion like Muslim but faithfully believe the Same God will they still go to heaven?

What really matters from the "Catholic perspective" is whether you "know" about Catholicism or not. We assert that for people who are "invincibly ignorant" of the Churches teachings, God knows what is each person's heart and He has the power to save people outside the "normal path" described in the Bible and elsewhere. In effect, people who were given the Quíran are essentially believing in the "same God" as Catholics, other Christians, and J e w s.

Originally Posted by gsonspre

I know we talked about this a few times, but if they dont accept Jesus as there Savior are there eternal beings doomed!?

This depends on who's interpretation of the Bible you use. We know the canon of the Bible was complete before 400 A.D. and that those exact translations are available today. This Bible was also translated from it's original languages into Latin by 405 A.D. and is still available in this exact form today (even online here if you want). The Catholic Church who defined this Bible teaches with the same authority that was used to teach Christians orally before the Bible was completely written and which books it included were defined. We have defended our teachings from then to this day against various "misinterpretations" (heresies) so that God's word can have a clear interpretation. Mostly around 1600 A.D. (around the time of the printing press) many felt they knew better than the Church and that their interpretations were correct and that the Catholic Church was wrong. Martin Luther is the "most famous" of these dissenters and "Protestantism" was borne as a result. Many of these denominations will say that you can only be saved by Jesus. They are correct that this is the "normal means" of salvation. If you believe Catholics, other faiths are not doomed (based on the guidelines I gave you earlier). Beyond Catholicism, it depends on which denomination you believe is correct (and then you are subject to "their rules").

Originally Posted by gsonspre

@shadow what are your feelings towards the actual religious words in the Quran?
Do they write through the word of God or is it written through a humans perspective of Him?

I have yet to read and study the Quíran. If you believe Muhammad's word that the angel Gabriel (who is a real angel) gave him these words, and you agree with them that the parts of the Bible he rejected are true, then you should feel comfortable following it. Our Church teaches "public revelation" ended with what Jesus taught to the apostles. Any divine revelation received after the death of the last apostle (John, around 100 A.D.) can be used by individuals but is not binding on the faithful. When someone teaches contrary to this (such as Muhammad saying that the angel Gabriel gave him "some corrections"), we cannot agree with the teachings that they add (no matter how valuable or logical they might seem). I'm sure there is much value in Islam but since it differs from what Christ taught I'd only consider it I were to somehow prove to myself that the Christian message is incorrect (and I'm not "there" yet). I have a high degree of respect for people who faithfully follow their understanding from our one true God to the best as they understand his message.

I'll try and address some of Shadow-360's initial comments and gsonspre's questions after this in some later posts I will make. (I really appreciate everyone's questions and I apologize that sometimes it takes me a few days to answer.)

I ... should firstly introduce my 'spiritual' background. I am an agnostic and searching for 'the truth' so to speak. I have studied many religions (and science) over the years in order to single out what seems legitimate to me, without any bias.

If I haven't said so before, I applaud the approach you are using and I hope if you find God, He will give you blessings.

Originally Posted by Shadow-360

Now, from what i've read of the thread (albeit little) i have noticed the exclusion of a significant other holy literature, this may surprise some of you as to me mentioning this, but has anyone ever considered the quran?
...
Sorry for going on the quran/islam mantra, but its been my studies of interest rather of late, and its surprising how many of you have left this out.

Yes, but since we were each "writing about what we know", this meant we had to wait for someone knowledgeable to help us with Islam (and any other faith, for that matter). No faith is excluded from discussion and all are welcome when someone can explain their beliefs and why they believe what they do. I made this very clear early on in this thread.

Originally Posted by Shadow-360

Basically, i'm not going to say why something is right, but i do feel quran to be more accurate than the bible in many ways, in fact, i havent found 'a holy book' yet which is more accurate. Feel free to correct me and/or add your view, i am a learner afterall. Believe me the bible has some major flaws, but if you dont think so, that's totally fine with me.

I believe the Bible is a book that requires a lot of effort to understand. It's rich set of writing styles as well as needing to understand the historical context when each book was written make this a challenge. I agree that the Bible can be easily misunderstood. I do not see the same major flaws that you do, so I'm assuming that simply means you likely have questions about the Bible that we should answer. I'm happy to research and answer any questions you have (given my time constraints as a "voluntary participant" here).

Originally Posted by Shadow-360

-On the subject of time, physicists have stated that time was also created, when the universe was, therefore outside the universe there is no time, presumable where god is, no? Where there is no end and no beginning?

I think you "hit the nail on the head". I'm not sure any of us know this for sure. I see it as sort of a "logic question" with the physicists' answer perhaps tuned to our known mathematical and scientific constraints. I'm happy to accept the best answer they can give (until they can give a better one).

Originally Posted by Shadow-360

You can add the logic to science if you wish, ok, there is no god, so what is there outside the universe? if you look at M theory, it states that there are an infinite number of universes outside ours. But wheres the beginning, is there a beginning? When was the first universe created. It's an exact paradox of the religious side of things, saying what was there before god? The truth is we can never answer these questions.

Your logic impresses me! I shamefully must admit I never considered the possibility of what's outside of the universe if there is no God. I just assumed (mathematically, not logically) that the universe could be infinite. I respect the thought and logic you've put into this question.

I think you guys are still trying to 'prove' or to say that god 'probably exists' because of the gaps in our scientific knowledge but again there's no logical indication that these gaps must be filled with an all knowing, mighty, designer individual (god). Physics never said 'time was created', steven hawking for example simply questioned the 'infinite line' concept of time because there's no logic in existing an infinite wait before anything happening and after he discovered that time was active in the universe the same way espace and energy are, it made sense that all these factors came to existence together. But to say that it was 'created' by 'god' is not only just a 'guess' at best but also not coherent with religion because the god of the catholics (for example) is the 'god of love' or 'compassion', that created earth in 7 days etc, not the god of 'scientific gaps', that's the 'philosophycal god' at best.
About what exists outside the universe, no one knows, there are scientists working on it but to say that 'god is there' is again a 'guess' at best and probably not coherent with religion.

People tend to 'accept' just portions of the bible or of a certain religion based on their modern morality and scientific knowledge and think these explain the existence of god but if your willing to become a serious christian you have to accept all that's in the bible, from the creation of earth in 7 days, to the vile actions of the old testament god to many other things. To accept 'just a couple' of portions demonstrate how weak an argument of the existence of the catholic god these portions are.